Boating Accident/Death off Diamond Island

[sa meredith]

Just a quick thought/question I have, as this thread seems to be starting to wind down... I have my own opinion on the matter, and without a long detailed post, would simply state that I believe justice is not being served. If her financial situation was different, I believe the outcome would be quite different...but when you can afford the best defense lawyers that money can buy...well you tend to get better results.
Anyway...my question...
I have plenty of boating experience on the lake...encountered my share of tough situations, made mistakes navigating, been caught if terrible weather...normal stuff every boater has experienced.
But all in the day time. I have never boated at night, and would really not know the first thing about it.
There has been much discussion about Erica coming off plane when visibilty went to zero, but because of the boat getting tossed, she decided to throttle back up a bit. So, I ask, when visibility is zero...AT NIGHT, BY THE WAY... when would it ever be a good idea to travel above headway speed?! You can't see...don't know what might be floating in the water ahead of you, but power up because people are not feeling well? "Lean over the side and toss, and while you're there, shout out if you happen to see anything".
Really though...is driving the boat at 18 MPH in zero visibilty an accepted practice? Curious what boaters with more experince than me might think.

[BroadHopper]

I would docked or anchor the boat and wait. I have done that a number of times. When I anchor off shore, it does not seem to be a problem. The MP seems to realize the safety issue. It is the town LEOs at public docks that are telling you to move on.

On the other hand, if I had radar, lorance, or GPS, it may have been different. I still need a proper look out.

[BlackCatIslander]

I know that if I am in my boat and the visibility is zero I would never go above headway speed and I would have my spotlight in use. I have been on the lake over 30 years and know that it is very easy to get disoriented very easily in the fog. Even with gps caution is necessary.

[Airwaves]

Secondcurve

She made it to her father's house so she could have tied up there.

According to the testimony the weather the visibility turned south AFTER she left her father's house.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Secondcurve

According to the testimony the weather the visibility turned south AFTER she left her father's house.

Classic example of New England weather. I noticed a lot of small crafts find out the hard way as they try to navigate The Broads.

[trfour]

http://citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...9897/0/CITIZEN

[NoBozo]

From my experience at sea (well away from land and lights) on a dark night. This doesn't affect everybody. It doesn't happen to me...BUT..some people are affected by loss of visual orientation ...boat rockin and rollin combined with the loss of a Visible Horizon.......resulting in Sea Sickness. Thats puking.

It has something to do with the inner ear..equalibrium..lack of a visual horizon combination. I can't explain the particulars.

I have seen Macho guys turn to MUSH under these conditions.

My Advice: Do NOT go down into the cabin..night or day..if you feel sea sick. Stay OUT in the cockpit with fresh air and a visual horizon. NB

[NoRegrets]

Great segway SAmeredith and maybe this could start a new thread.

GPS places you on the breadcrumbs you left behind and shows the map with your position on it so by itself you can move providing you have visibility so I agree with BCI.

Radar will pick up other movable objects when visibility becomes impared. You must become familiar and practice - practice - and practice with this equipment ao you can adjust for rain, humidity, and waves to maximize your accuracy. When tuned for the condition you can become fairly safe. Most radars can also set alarms if it picks up on an object in a configured zone. I will create 2 zones around 300 feet and 500 feet ahead of me and an audible alarm goes off if a marker, boat, obstruction or anything that reflects the radar comes within the zones as we are under way. On one occasion my alarm triggered and0 it was a flock of ducks. Did I emphasize that PRACTICE is imperative?

It is easy to become disoriented in fog even with the equipment so that is when the compass and chart become important. One time I was sure I was looking in one direction but all my equipment told me otherwise. It was a bad feeling so I shut down competely and verified with all my equipment and I was wrong.

I am sure there are other possibilities and use of teh equipment but I do find it liberating and exhilerating to navigate in all types of conditions. With my current knowledge and experience I would NOT go on plane without radar in limited visibility conditions. This includes bright sunshine.

The poorest condition we encountered was leaving Center Harbor and we could not see the end of the bow. It took us over 2 hours of focused navigation to get to the back side of Governer's Island. We were very confident we were safe and posed no danger to anyone elso. As soon as we got into the broads the fog lifted. Great experience.

Erica's testomy included a statement that the conditions were getting her passengers sick so she decided to pick up the speed (paraphrased by me) was interesting and it is true that headway speed in waves can be awful. I would think a faster "plowing" approach with the bow up would stablize the rocking sensation but if you hit an object at that speed (maybe 8- 12 MPH) the results would be different. Not judging but just pondering. What do you all think.

Thanks for the post SAMeredith.

Ice Out Monday!!!! maybe?

[SAMIAM]

After reading some of the posts today......it's clear we didn't even need that jury.....these folks have it all figured out.Why even bother with a trial when we have so many experts right here?

[sa meredith]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

After reading some of the posts today......it's clear we didn't even need that jury.....these folks have it all figured out.Why even bother with a trial when we have so many experts right here?

Curious if this post is pointed at me?
My honest thought is that thereis just too much evidence that alcohol played a rolled here...way too much. The .15 alone would normally be enough.
But the right attorney can show any evidence to be circumstancial...and that's what I believe happened here.
Maybe I'm wrong.
But here is a captain who grew up on the lake. She can probably navigate and operate a large boat as well,if not better,than anyone who reads this forum. And yet we are to believe she made the decisions that she did, with a clear head? Doesn't add up.
I think many people in the area know her, and consider her a friend, so they get their ire up when they comment on this matter. But the events of the evening seem to have taken a course that intoxication would explain.
Not trying to offend anyone. This is just my opinion.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by sa meredith

"...But the events of the evening seem to have taken a course that intoxication would explain.
Not trying to offend anyone. This is just my opinion..."

Starting with post #900, there does seem to be a "too-wide support" for alcohol on board a boat.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Starting with post #900, there does seem to be a "too-wide support" for alcohol on board a boat.

There is nothing wrong (legally and morally) with having alcohol on a boat. Just because there is alcohol on a boat does not mean that the person piloting the boat has been drinking. It doesn't mean that anyone on the boat has been drinking. And it does not mean that any person on the boat is drunk.

The presence of alcohol on a boat means just one thing...that there is alcohol on a boat. Nothing more, nothing less. So yes, I am saying that as long as it is legal, it is perfectly acceptable.

[fatlazyless]

Alcohol does a good job of removing ink marks from vinyl upholstery, plus it cleans paint brushes used with BIN primer-sealer. Two excellent reasons to carry alcohol on board!

For a skipper out navigat'n in a $150,000 Formula 370 SS, maintaining a good supply of Grey Goose would most certainly be an appropriate application!

[NoRegrets]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Alcohol does a good job of removing ink marks from vinyl upholstery, plus it cleans paint brushes used with BIN primer-sealer. Two excellent reasons to carry alcohol on board! For a skipper out navigat'n in a $150,000 Formula 370 SS, maintaining a good supply of Grey Goose would most certainly be an appropriate application!

I was getting so serious but your post just changed my day! Thanks.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Alcohol does a good job of removing ink marks from vinyl upholstery, plus it cleans paint brushes used with BIN primer-sealer. Two excellent reasons to carry alcohol on board!

For a skipper out navigat'n in a $150,000 Formula 370 SS, maintaining a good supply of Grey Goose would most certainly be an appropriate application!

Never knew that, how utterly good taste

I think the Formula is a lot closer to $400k than 200k. It's a fashionable express cruiser. I could use my boat as a tender for it

[Excalibur]

I have waited for the outcome and to learn all the facts in this case. It effected me as a frequent night boater on the lake and I believed it has made me more cautious even on a lake I know like the back of my hand.

I was saddened for the loss and hardship it has caused, and felt it could of happen anyone else on the lake that boats at night. Alcohol is always on your mind to jump to conclusion, "they must have been drunk to hit a island". But many things impair our judgment, and being late at night, fatigue is a major cause of accidents.

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/fatig...accidents.html

So I hope for all of us that enjoy the lake, to keep a respect for it.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Excalibur

. But many things impair our judgment, and being late at night, fatigue is a major cause of accidents.

As I watched the trial unfold and read what I could. And then knowing what I know about fatigue I have always, and will always wonder what role fatigue played in this case. Unfortunately as Alcohol is always a much more volatile subject in these case it got all the attention.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't believe that Erica was stone cold sober that night. But was the fatigue from a long day involved in this accident every bit as much as the alcohol... I personally believe it was.... I believe it very well could have been the driving force to get to the destination that night for a good nights sleep. Instead of anchoring somewhere and waiting the bad weather out.

A thought for everyone to think about here... The last time you had two or three drinks...(assuming you don't have 2 or 3 drinks every night)... how quickly do you feel fatigued and ready to head off to bed.

[VtSteve]

Typically, days spent lounging around in the sun will make me a bit fatigued, whether I've had drinks or not. Standing at the helm for extended period will fatigue my back, so this year I tried the new Sperry (ASV) anti-shock-vibration gimmick shoe. So far, after a week, my back feels much more relaxed after days on hard surfaces.

Many people know what it's like to be so tired, the lines on the road seem to be your only focus. It's very hard to concentrate on what's up ahead at that stage. Can't say I've ever felt that in a boat, the air usually makes me alert.

But I doubt fatigue played much of a part in this case, who knows? In rain and limited visibility, anything can happen. She couldn't see anything, but thought she was ok due to one reading. It wasn't a great choice. Personally, I've never, ever been sick or dizzy on a lake in a boat, driving or not. And I'm quite sure that I would never take a reading of 70' of water as an indication of being safe. Anyone that's ever boated on any lake knows that 70' can become deeper, or shallower, real quick. We have a spot out front here by a reef, it goes from almost 350' to 8' inside of a quarter mile.

All we can do now is take it all in, and realize that we're not as good as our minds think we are. We were told that as HS kids, again in college, and by adult age, everyone just hopes most of us listened. But in the end Ex, as an adult, I know that neither fatigue, nor alcohol was to blame here. Those two items are choices and actions made by the operator. Accidents can, and will, happen to even the most careful skipper. But each situation is different.

Everyone has their own common sense, or even sympathetic sense, of what this accident entailed. The details of the start to finish trip have all been laid out during the trial for all to see. All I can say after all of this is that the last picture I saw from court was a little disturbing, although many predicted it.

For the rest of us, we all know there are very serious responsibilities that come with piloting a boat of any kind. Nobody's perfect, but at least we try to take these things seriously.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by chillininnh

No amount of punishment levied upon her by a court of law and a jury of her peers will come close to the suffering she will endure living with the memory of this terrible tragedy.

1) Would you support a revocation of this captain's boating certificate?

2) If so—keeping in mind the summons-penalties—for how long?

Originally Posted by chipj29

There is nothing wrong (legally and morally) with having alcohol on a boat. Just because there is alcohol on a boat does not mean that the person piloting the boat has been drinking. It doesn't mean that anyone on the boat has been drinking. And it does not mean that any person on the boat is drunk.

The presence of alcohol on a boat means just one thing...that there is alcohol on a boat. Nothing more, nothing less. So yes, I am saying that as long as it is legal, it is perfectly acceptable.

1) Interesting insertion of morally into the debate: How about in automobiles? For truckers? For train engineers?

2) To ask the Union Leader's headline-question again:

"Horrible Accident or Drunken Crash?"

Keep in mind the following FACTS:

BAC of defendant Blizzard: .15
BAC of decedent Beaudoin: .14
BAC of injured-passenger Shinopoulos: .09

3) To the well-being of our fellow boaters, passengers and shoreline dwellers—while burdened with a Captain's responsibility, every one of us owes the highest and most-rigid of standards.

IMHO

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

1) Interesting insertion of morally into the debate: How about in automobiles? For truckers? For train engineers?

What is so morally wrong with me having alcohol in my vehicle, whether it be a boat or car? I won't argue with the truck or train, as those are completely different scenarios. One should not carry alcohol in a business vehicle. Where I work there are rules against that.

Again, the vehicle (my personal vehicle) is being used as transportation. It is perfectly legal. Alcohol is perfectly legal to purchase, transport and even drink. I know that is hard to believe, but it is still legal to drink alcohol. The horror.
If it was morally wrong for me to carry alcohol in my car, how would I get it home from the store?
If it was morally wrong for me to carry alcohol in my boat, how would I get it to my island home (if I had an island home for example)? How would I get it from my lakefront home, to a friends house where I was staying the night?

If alcohol was not morally acceptable, how would I drink the blessed sacrament in church?

Seriously APS, alcohol is legal and morally accepted by most people.

Let me give you one scenario here. I was driving home from work one Friday, and stopped to pick up a 30 pack to enjoy over the weekend, perhaps with some friends. While driving home from the store, I was pulled over for speeding. Other than a speeding ticket, what am I being charged with for transporting the alcohol to my house? What do my neighbors think of me for bringing home some beer...in my car?

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by chipj29

What is so morally wrong with me having alcohol in my vehicle, whether it be a boat or car?

For a moral opinion....talk to your moral adviser, ....for a legal opinion....New Hampshire has a state statute commonly known as the "open container law" which outlaws an open alcoholic beverage to be within the vehicle while on the road, and means an open beer can, wine bottle, liquor bottle with its' cork, tab, screw top, etc., being removed.

Understand you can purchase facsimile faux cans of soda that look like Coke or Pepsi that fit over a beer can and presumably disquise the open beer from the eyes of law enforcement but not necessarily from their noses.

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Understand you can purchase facsimile faux cans of soda that look like Coke or Pepsi that fit over a beer can and presumably disquise the open beer from the eyes of law enforcement but not necessarily from their noses.

I Had NO IDEA about such an option. Never heard of such a thing. No need to. SO How would YOU know such things....?? Just wondering...???.............. NB

[fatlazyless]

...faux, slip-over disquiser cans?.....by reading about them in this forum.....like where else? ...and no doubt available on the internet. Ever notice how law enforcement tends to sniff beverage containers during traffic stops as they know about all the tricks...

[OCDACTIVE]

There hasn't been one substantial post regarding the case, in hand, in days.. Perhaps someone should start a alcohol and boating thread so that the continuous conjecture can stop.

There is nothing more that can be said that hasn't been said already until April 21st. So lets have some respect for everyone involved and move the conversation elsewhere.

[sa meredith]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

There hasn't been one substantial post regarding the case, in hand, in days.. Perhaps someone should start a alcohol and boating thread so that the continuous conjecture can stop.

There is nothing more that can be said that hasn't been said already until April 21st. So lets have some respect for everyone involved and move the conversation elsewhere.

I would take issue with your statement...
I posed what I thought a very legit question.
And so, I ask you....
I've read many of your posts, and clearly you are a skilled/experienced boater. So tell me...under what circumstances, would you travel, at night, at 18MPH, in zero visibility, in a non emergency situation?

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by sa meredith

I would take issue with your statement...
I posed what I thought a very legit question.
And so, I ask you....
I've read many of your posts, and clearly you are a skilled/experienced boater. So tell me...under what circumstances, would you travel, at night, at 18MPH, in zero visibility, in a non emergency situation?

Start a new thread and I will be happy to answer night driving questions, my habits etc.

Also it was not directed at you.. I have found this thread has become offensive in many posts (not yours) to those partys involved on both sides. Every bit of evidence that has been brought to light as been discussed, elaborated on, even speculated on to no ends.

To continue to discuss other issues under this topic in my opinion is disrespectful to the families and we should let it rest until there is any more information or news brought to light.

But again if you want to discuss night driving or alcohol in boats I would be more then happy to discuss my views and safety on the lake at your convenience. Just in a different thread.

[sunset on the dock]

Looks like someone thinks speed limits on our highways aren't necessary either. If I were writing a book I couldn't even dream this stuff up!

From Laconia Citizen.....citizen.com

Laconia:
Blizzard cited for going 84 mph while talking on cell phone

[Slickcraft]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Looks like someone thinks speed limits on our highways aren't necessary either. If I were writing a book I couldn't even dream this stuff up!

From Laconia Citizen.....citizen.com

Laconia:
Blizzard cited for going 84 mph while talking on cell phone

Link to the story:
http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...607/-1/CITIZEN

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

Start a new thread and I will be happy to answer night driving questions, my habits etc.

Also it was not directed at you.. I have found this thread has become offensive in many posts (not yours) to those partys involved on both sides. Every bit of evidence that has been brought to light as been discussed, elaborated on, even speculated on to no ends.

To continue to discuss other issues under this topic in my opinion is disrespectful to the families and we should let it rest until there is any more information or news brought to light.

But again if you want to discuss night driving or alcohol in boats I would be more then happy to discuss my views and safety on the lake at your convenience. Just in a different thread.

OCDACTIVE:

It looks like there is some new information on Blizzard. Care to comment? Clearly she is a menace not only on our waterways but on our roadways. I'm sure it wasn't her fault maybe her gas pedal was defective like all those Toyota's. I think if I were her I'd also change my vanity plate, but that is just me.

[steadyon]

Unbelievable!!!
I am glad that she didn't run the cop down!
clearly she has a problem with obeying the laws.

[fatlazyless]

"XTREME" is her New Hampshire vanity license plate according to the news report in the Citizen on a large GM suv and it came close to hitting the state trooper who jumped out of the way as she was 84-mph and texting on a cell phone. If this saga becomes a Hollywood movie, me-thinks that Julia Roberts could be an excellent actress in character to portray Erica.

....talk about bad timing what with the recent court verdict, the Belknap County Prosecutor, the Belknap County Superior Court Judge, the New Hampshire State Trooper, the local news press, the public interest, and poor Erica and her defense attorney......sounds like it's definately ready to roll....and coming soon...to a movie theatre near you....

[jeffk]

I haven't commented since the verdict so I might as well throw my 2 cents into the ante. I thought she would be convicted of negligence from the beginning. There is a HUGE responsibility on the operator of a boat to operate it flawlessly. Essentially, if there is a collision it is very difficult to avoid some type of responsibility for the collision. Since a death was involved this makes it even more of an issue. On a night that was described as extremely poor visibility it makes no sense to be traveling on plane. A prudent person would have been operating at headway speed. Further, I haven't seen why she wasn't using GPS? I know others have said theirs isn't always reliable but my experience has been very good with with mine. I might get a 10 ft error so I could hit a marker if I was cutting things too close, but an island? Sorry, not in my experience. When I am out at night I use GPS and sight to navigate. If either one fails I drop off plane to get my bearings. On the other hand if I have a clear GPS track and I can visually confirm it I am comfortable cruising at 45 MPH.

I am not against drinking but there is just no excuse for irresponsibility. Her BAC show she was legally drunk. My guess is the jury let her off on the alcohol conviction because they felt she was already paying a high price and would face jail time with the negligence conviction alone. It's not what the jury should have done but juries can make those kind of decisions. I think the challenges of night boating are significant. I drink very lightly on nights I am out, only one drink, possibly a second if I know I will be not leaving for a few hours. I don't need the extra disorientation at night. I think that's what a responsible boater should do. She was not acting responsibly.

I think she made a lot of stupid and even arrogant choices and her friend is dead because of it. She is going to pay a high price for her behavior. I'm not out for vengeance. I think it is a tragic situation for everyone involved but she has to accept the responsibility for her actions.

The driving incident underscores her mindset. 84 is pushing it pretty good. Using a cell phone in the manner described is foolish. She does what she wants and doesn't consider the cost. I guess after going through the accident I would have expected her to have become more circumspect. Sad.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

OCDACTIVE:

It looks like there is some new information on Blizzard. Care to comment? Clearly she is a menace not only on our waterways but on our roadways. I'm sure it wasn't her fault maybe her gas pedal was defective like all those Toyota's. I think if I were her I'd also change my vanity plate, but that is just me.

this is not new information concerning the tragic loss of life from a boating accident.

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

...faux, slip-over disquiser cans?.....by reading about them in this forum.....like where else? ...and no doubt available on the internet. Ever notice how law enforcement tends to sniff beverage containers during traffic stops as they know about all the tricks...

NOPE: Can't say I have ever noticed law enforcement "Sniffing' beverage containers during traffic stops. Havn't been in a Traffic Stop since I was a teenager...maybe around 1961 or so. Maybe I need to get Stopped to get up to date. NB

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by chipj29

What is so morally wrong with me having alcohol in my vehicle, whether it be a boat or car? I won't argue with the truck or train, as those are completely different scenarios. One should not carry alcohol in a business vehicle. Where I work there are rules against that.

Again, the vehicle (my personal vehicle) is being used as transportation. It is perfectly legal. Alcohol is perfectly legal to purchase, transport and even drink. I know that is hard to believe, but it is still legal to drink alcohol. The horror.
If it was morally wrong for me to carry alcohol in my car, how would I get it home from the store?
If it was morally wrong for me to carry alcohol in my boat, how would I get it to my island home (if I had an island home for example)? How would I get it from my lakefront home, to a friends house where I was staying the night?

If alcohol was not morally acceptable, how would I drink the blessed sacrament in church?

Seriously APS, alcohol is legal and morally accepted by most people.

Let me give you one scenario here. I was driving home from work one Friday, and stopped to pick up a 30 pack to enjoy over the weekend, perhaps with some friends. While driving home from the store, I was pulled over for speeding. Other than a speeding ticket, what am I being charged with for transporting the alcohol to my house? What do my neighbors think of me for bringing home some beer...in my car?

Chip:

She killed someone and she was drunk based upon scientific evidence, as APS aptly notes above. While the jury didn't find her guilty on two of the three charges, they didn't find her innocent either. The jury did find her guilty of negligently operating her boat.

The sentencing will be interesting. My guess is that the judge will go heavy on the jail time given that he likely wasn't fooled by Blizzard's slick attorney.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

1) Would you support a revocation of this captain's boating certificate?

2) If so—keeping in mind the summons-penalties—for how long?


1) Interesting insertion of morally into the debate: How about in automobiles? For truckers? For train engineers?

2) To ask the Union Leader's headline-question again:

"Horrible Accident or Drunken Crash?"

Keep in mind the following FACTS:



3) To the well-being of our fellow boaters, passengers and shoreline dwellers—while burdened with a Captain's responsibility, every one of us owes the highest and most-rigid of standards.

IMHO

APS, I will be completely honest and say that 95% of the times that my boat is on the water, there is alcohol on board. I will also tell you that 100% of the time the operator is sober.

You seem to have focused on the "on board" part. Standards should not include (or in this place preclude) what can be carried onboard a boat, tractor trailer or automobile.

Please understand I have no tolerance for drunk operators. I think Ms. Blizzard got off easy legally.

A good operator is a good operator and what he/she carries on board will not change that. Of course, the opposite is true.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by sa meredith

Curious if this post is pointed at me?
My honest thought is that thereis just too much evidence that alcohol played a rolled here...way too much. The .15 alone would normally be enough.
But the right attorney can show any evidence to be circumstancial...and that's what I believe happened here.
Maybe I'm wrong.
But here is a captain who grew up on the lake. She can probably navigate and operate a large boat as well,if not better,than anyone who reads this forum. And yet we are to believe she made the decisions that she did, with a clear head? Doesn't add up.
I think many people in the area know her, and consider her a friend, so they get their ire up when they comment on this matter. But the events of the evening seem to have taken a course that intoxication would explain.
Not trying to offend anyone. This is just my opinion.

I wouldn't think it was pointed at you SA I for one think you raise some very interesting points of view. A lot of your thoughts are pretty spot on. In that visibility if all accounts are accurate the only prudent speed should have been no wake speed. I've been there and done that and it can be scary. I was out on a night when visibiltiy went to zero I limped back to the weirs at No Wake from beyond governers and eagle. When I came into weirs my course was off about 25 yard or so. Thankfully I had the lights from the beach to guide me and I was traveling at 5 mph.

[VtSteve]

Whatever... These two look pretty darn happy to me. Probably relieved that it's finally over.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...NTPAGE/3190304

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by RI Swamp Yankee

I posted this way back in this thread but the Coast Guard does have not only an opinion but a rule:

RULE 6
SAFE SPEED
Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

I tend to value their opinion and experience.

As do I, unfortunately NH has never adopted Rule 6.

[SAMIAM]

Not at all, SA...I've always enjoyed your posts. That was kind of tongue in cheek, referring to the fact that none of us were privy to the information that the jury got in order to render a decision.

[RI Swamp Yankee]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Originally posted by RI Swamp Yankee
As do I, unfortunately NH has never adopted Rule 6.

True, it just points out what the prudent, experienced would/should do.

[sa meredith]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

Whatever... These two look pretty darn happy to me. Probably relieved that it's finally over.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...NTPAGE/3190304

While I'm sure the smiles are from some measure of relief knowing that the trial is over, my best guess would be that Stephanie Beaudoin's family can't bring themselves to smile at all, when considering this event.

[PC31]

Originally Posted by sa meredith

Curious if this post is pointed at me?
My honest thought is that thereis just too much evidence that alcohol played a rolled here...way too much. The .15 alone would normally be enough.
But the right attorney can show any evidence to be circumstancial...and that's what I believe happened here.
Maybe I'm wrong.
But here is a captain who grew up on the lake. She can probably navigate and operate a large boat as well,if not better,than anyone who reads this forum. And yet we are to believe she made the decisions that she did, with a clear head? Doesn't add up.
I think many people in the area know her, and consider her a friend, so they get their ire up when they comment on this matter. But the events of the evening seem to have taken a course that intoxication would explain.
Not trying to offend anyone. This is just my opinion.

Were you intoxicated when you wound up in the witches? Obviously the prosecutor did not prove that .15 was accurate.

[sa meredith]

Originally Posted by PC31

Were you intoxicated when you wound up in the witches? Obviously the prosecutor did not prove that .15 was accurate.

Really...you think that an appropriate analogy???!!! Really???
Strange, but I'll bite...
Visibilty was simply as far as the eye can see...bright sunny day. No real reason to not be cruising along.
There were no beer can/bottles empty/full on board. No booze of any kind.
I had not spent 5 hours in a bar that day.
I had consumed no alcohol in the previous 24 hours.
Realizing my insanely stupid/ careless error, I STOPPED IN TIME!

I don't want to do battle with you...really.
But you think these are the same things?

Honestly...my only real questions here, are given her amount of experience (which I believe to be substancial), how can she have made some of the deciisons that she did.
Really, it comes down just one decision...she stated visibility went to zero...but powered back up because her passengers were feeling ill.
That does not sound like the logic of a clear thinking person.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

[RI Swamp Yankee]

Originally Posted by sa meredith

.......is driving the boat at 18 MPH in zero visibilty an accepted practice? ....

I posted this way back in this thread but the Coast Guard does have not only an opinion but a rule:

RULE 6
SAFE SPEED
Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

I tend to value their opinion and experience.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by sa meredith

Just a quick thought/question I have, as this thread seems to be starting to wind down... I have my own opinion on the matter, and without a long detailed post, would simply state that I believe justice is not being served. If her financial situation was different, I believe the outcome would be quite different...but when you can afford the best defense lawyers that money can buy...well you tend to get better results.

Just to play devils advocate...

So which is it, are the poor under-served, or are the wealthy over-served?

I've certainly heard detailed accounts of over-zealous public prosecutors that have put innocent people (and by innocent I mean people later acquitted by DNS evidence, etc.) away because those people couldn't afford a proper defense.

Can you blame someone for using all of their available resources to try to escape a conviction? Do you think in this case Erica should have gone with a public defender? Would you do things differently if you were in the same position with the same resources?

[sa meredith]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

Just to play devils advocate...

So which is it, are the poor under-served, or are the wealthy over-served?

I've certainly heard detailed accounts of over-zealous public prosecutors that have put innocent people (and by innocent I mean people later acquitted by DNS evidence, etc.) away because those people couldn't afford a proper defense.

Can you blame someone for using all of their available resources to try to escape a conviction? Do you think in this case Erica should have gone with a public defender? Would you do things differently if you were in the same position with the same resources?

It's like this... people are quick to say, "well, let's not rush to judgement. Let the judge and jury decide"
Well, using that same logic, let's not be naive and think that a judge and jury cannnot be mislead, by a sharp lawyer, who can make the evidence look exactly the way he wants it to. See: OJ.
In this case, admitted they were in bar for 5 hours, admitted they were drinking, had booze and empties on board, tested at .15, made very poor decisions that a normal thinking person would have a hard time agreeing with...but OUI? Of course not.